Silly rule?

[Spacehamster]

So if you shoot somebody from stealth are automatically found, skulker feat covers that you don't get found out when you miss. Is it just me that finds this a bit silly, I highly doubt that if you get an arrow in your leg while in a dark forest for example you would automatically know "ah he is behind tree x2". So is this rule good or just silly?

[themaque]

3.5 kinda covered this with Cover/concealment rules.

I personally think that it goes "Hey someone is in those bushes!" but if they still have 100% cover, there is still little you can DO about it.
If they have 1/4 to 1/2 then you could say "Hey! it was probably THAT GUY!"

[pwykersotz]

I think the rule works fine. The idea is that when you get hit, you can know the trajectory and general location and spot the person who did it reactively. You're not looking for tree #2, you're looking at the shadowy figure who just ducked behind the branches over there. If it's pitch black and the enemy is off balance, it's totally acceptable to rule in an insight check or similar to track it. But the Skulker feat means that if you miss, you're skilled and stealthy enough that you didn't give away your position.

[Mando Knight]

Note that you only know the location of the attacker. Getting attacked doesn't mean that you can see your attacker, it means you know where they were attacking from... and if there isn't something keeping them from being seen (i.e. Invisibility or pitch-darkness and you're just a lowly Human rather than a Drow or Dwarf or something), they can hide again, such that you won't know their new location. If you only know the location of the target but can't actually see them, you get disadvantage on making a counter-attack.

[Spacehamster]

Think I will rule it that you know the general location for example if you shoot from a window in a large building they will know it's from one of the windows there most likely and it will make them start searching and make active perception rolls vs shooters stealth. To give it a cat and mouse feel.

[Myzz]

Note that you only know the location of the attacker. Getting attacked doesn't mean that you can see your attacker, it means you know where they were attacking from... and if there isn't something keeping them from being seen (i.e. Invisibility or pitch-darkness and you're just a lowly Human rather than a Drow or Dwarf or something), they can hide again, such that you won't know their new location. If you only know the location of the target but can't actually see them, you get disadvantage on making a counter-attack.



I wish that was the way everyone read it... BUt I get the feeling that the default is Stealth Attacker X is now seen an unable to hide in almost every conceiveable manner, AND in addition every person in the party of X's target now can also see X. Even if X now has total cover.

Most sensible DM's will probably rule more in the light of Mando Knight's view... But for those that don't, Halfings and Wood Elves become that much more powerful, for having RAW ways to hide again.

If a Bow Shot came from more than 40 ft, AND the attacker had cover... I don't think you would ever see exactly where the shot came from, you'd never see the shadowy figure because he'd already have cover again. Any farther out and you might not actually hear anything before the arrow slams into your leg, leaving you with "he's over there to the left somewhere..."

[Sjappo]

I think the point of the rule is not so much the counterattack. That would rely on visibility, vision and whatnot as has been pointed out. Just stepping behind a tree won't do much good if the mark comes looking with a lantern and a big-ass sword for instance.

The point is that the mark knows there is a sniper and he cannot be sneak attacked by the sniper again. Unless the sniper takes an action to re-hide. Also known as change position. As such the rule makes excellent sense to me.

[Myzz]

I think the point of the rule is not so much the counterattack. That would rely on visibility, vision and whatnot as has been pointed out. Just stepping behind a tree won't do much good if the mark comes looking with a lantern and a big-ass sword for instance.

The point is that the mark knows there is a sniper and he cannot be sneak attacked by the sniper again. Unless the sniper takes an action to re-hide. Also known as change position. As such the rule makes excellent sense to me.


The problem with RAW is that it is being interpretted to mean that the Sniper can NOT hide again because the Target knows where he is...

[themaque]

The problem with RAW is that it is being interpretted to mean that the Sniper can NOT hide again because the Target knows where he is...

Ever play the video game Farcry 2? I used a sniper rifle on an enemy on the next island over while hiding in the bushes. No way they should have known I was there, but as soon as I fired a shot they all turned around and shot at me. Directly at me and a strict reading of RAW without thought of cover has people reacting just like that.

Most everyone on this board however thinks the rules itself are fine, just that interpretation is silly.

[Sjappo]

The problem with RAW is that it is being interpretted to mean that the Sniper can NOT hide again because the Target knows where he is...
You cannot hide from a creature that sees you. That is the rule as I recall. So you need total cover before you can attempt to hide again. So you need to step behind a tree and use an action to hide. Where's the problem?

I'd use the "specific trumps general" rule and allow halflings, half-elves, rangers and what not to use there more advantageous rules for hiding when re-hiding after a successful snipe. That seems to me what is intended. Still YMMV.

[silveralen]

The problem with RAW is that it is being interpretted to mean that the Sniper can NOT hide again because the Target knows where he is...

Right. Because the target not only knows where the enemy is, he is on edge and alert after just getting shot. Unless the enemy has 100% concealment and moves to a new location, it seems perfectly reasonable he couldn't hide again immediately afterwards.

[Mara]

Seems people conflate "knows where they are" with "seen".

Those are two very different things. If the rules say "seen" that cannot just be interchanged with "location known".

[themaque]

Seems people conflate "knows where they are" with "seen".

Those are two very different things. If the rules say "seen" that cannot just be interchanged with "location known".

fair, i'm AFB. what is the exact wording?

[EvanescentHero]

fair, i'm AFB. what is the exact wording?

PHB, page 195: "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

[Mara]

By that wording, you can sneak attack foes that know your exact location. Furthermore, attacking only gives away your location, that line by itself does not mean you are seen or heard.

[themaque]

PHB, page 195: "If you are hidden--both unseen and unheard--when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

So you are right back to where we started. :-)

Location could mean "Somewhere in that copse of trees!" or "That guy behind the Larch!" depending on situation.

I go back to situational judgment call then like most posters.

[Malifice]

You cannot hide from a creature that sees you. That is the rule as I recall. So you need total cover before you can attempt to hide again. So you need to step behind a tree and use an action to hide. Where's the problem?

That is interpreted (by many, including myself) to mean that if you are seen going into hiding.

As in; picture a room with single pillar in the middle and a halfling rogue hiding behind it. No enemies are aware of his presence.

When he first attacks (from hiding) he gets the benefits of attacking from hiding (advantage on the attack). If he has the skulker feat, and misses, he can then use an action (or a bonus action if he has cunning action) to hide again behind the pillar. No problems there. He remains hidden despite attempting the attack. If he hits someone (or misses and doesnt have the skulker feat) his position is now revealed to all and sundry. Enemies can now see him (are aware of his presence and exactly where he is). Even if he popped back behind his pillar so no-one could see him, and used another action (or bonus action with cunning action) to hide again, he isnt 'hidden' (although he will have full cover). Any further attacks from behind that pillar to enemies that know he is there do not get the benefits of attacking from hiding (no advantage to the attacks). His enemies know exactly where he is (behind the pillar); ergo he is no longer hidden. They certainly wont be surprised to see him pop back around and shoot again from the spot they saw him pop behind a second prior.

'Cant be seen' and 'hidden' are very different things. Invisible people are not 'hidden' by default. They just no longer require anything to hide behind.

Thats RAW and (IMO) RAI. DM's can rule it differently of course, and I could certainly see situations where that doesnt hold true (for example if the Rogue was a spellcaster and used misty step to teleport to another location from behind the pillar and then hid from this new spot, or slipped on a ring of invisibility and slinked off to another location and re set another ambush).

Any other interpretation leads to the 'jack in the box' rogue phenomenon where a thief hiding in a box in the middle of an empty 100' room can simply pop up from hiding in his box, shoot someone in the face, duck back down into the box, use the 'hide' action (now that no-one can see him anymore) and repeat every round.

Another (easier and common sense) way of saying it is; if your enemies know exactly where you are, you arent hidden from those enemies.

[Sjappo]

So mechanically it boils down to "should a halfling rogue be allowed to use sneak attack every round?" I'd say yes. SA every round is viable in melee for every rogue with the help of a flanker. Giving a halfling rogue a SA every round at the cost of his bonus action seems not that OP to me. And if he bodges his hide check (below the targets passive perception) he looses his SA.

The jack in a box rogue is a weird one but remember that a jack in a box can startle you even if you know it's comming. So the rogue timing it perfectly time and time again is totally fine. For me anyway.

[Malifice]

So mechanically it boils down to "should a halfling rogue be allowed to use sneak attack every round?" I'd say yes. SA every round is viable in melee for every rogue with the help of a flanker. Giving a halfling rogue a SA every round at the cost of his bonus action seems not that OP to me. And if he bodges his hide check (below the targets passive perception) he looses his SA.

There is no (DPR) reason to deny a rogue from simply just doing SA damage every round. SA damage is easy enough to get that its virtually assumed in the rogue class. All you need is an ally within 5' or advantage. Both are easy enough to get.

My issue is with some of these interpretations of 'jack in the box' hiding breaking my verisimilitude in very serious ways. Its patently absurd to claim to be 'hidden' in the box when both objectively and subjectively speaking... you're not. The enemy watched you pop down and close the lid after shooting at him.

For an even more ridiculous situation, consider instead of a box to hide in, the Rogue carries a blanket stretched out on a frame and attached to a pole. He uses his movement to position the frame between him and his enemy, then his bonus action to 'hide' behind the blanket (now that you cant see him anymore), and then his action to pop out from behind the blanket and attack you with advantage (seeing as he was 'hidden'). Its absurd.

Or every rogue will just carry around a large cardboard box to jump into every combat. Because popping in and out of that box makes his attacks 'better' somehow.

From a mechanical point of view, keeping to the 'youre only hidden when the enemy cant pinpoint your general location' interpretation of hiding, makes mechanical sense as any other interpretation makes cunning action (already very strong thanks to bonus action dash and disengage) effectively a free and unbeatable source of advantage on every attack a Rogue ever makes from 2nd level onwards.

[Sjappo]

There is no (DPR) reason to deny a rogue from simply just doing SA damage every round. SA damage is easy enough to get that its virtually assumed in the rogue class. All you need is an ally within 5' or advantage. Both are easy enough to get.

My issue is with some of these interpretations of 'jack in the box' hiding breaking my verisimilitude in very serious ways. Its patently absurd to claim to be 'hidden' in the box when both objectively and subjectively speaking... you're not. The enemy watched you pop down and close the lid after shooting at him.

For an even more ridiculous situation, consider instead of a box to hide in, the Rogue carries a blanket stretched out on a frame and attached to a pole. He uses his movement to position the frame between him and his enemy, then his bonus action to 'hide' behind the blanket (now that you cant see him anymore), and then his action to pop out from behind the blanket and attack you with advantage (seeing as he was 'hidden'). Its absurd.

Or every rogue will just carry around a large cardboard box to jump into every combat. Because popping in and out of that box makes his attacks 'better' somehow.

From a mechanical point of view, keeping to the 'youre only hidden when the enemy cant pinpoint your general location' interpretation of hiding, makes mechanical sense as any other interpretation makes cunning action (already very strong thanks to bonus action dash and disengage) effectively a free and unbeatable source of advantage on every attack a Rogue ever makes from 2nd level onwards.
I see your point. To be honest, I'm having some trouble with the Jack-in-the-Box scenario. I'm ruling quite leniently for our Halfling Rogue at the moment. But there has to be some rationale. The scenarios you sketch do indeed break verisimilitude. But they are really rare in my experience. Most encounters do not take place on a featureless plane. So, most of the time, when the rogue re-hides behind a pillar or bush the enemy has no way of knowing if he stayed behind the pillar or has moved on to places unknown. So popping back out could perceivably be a surprise the second time around, granting advantage.

As far as rulings on hiding go. Bodging the stealth roll means your probably not hidden if your target has a decent passive perception. Hiding behind a table, altar, other person in a brightly lit place means nothing when your target walks around it. Hiding stays a really iffy subject.

But we're getting into really specific rulings in really specific scenarios.

To get back to the OP. No, for me this is not a silly rule. Shooting someone in the face giving away your location is fine from a mechanical and immersion standpoint IMO.

[Malifice]

I see your point. To be honest, I'm having some trouble with the Jack-in-the-Box scenario. I'm ruling quite leniently for our Halfling Rogue at the moment. But there has to be some rationale. The scenarios you sketch do indeed break verisimilitude. But they are really rare in my experience. Most encounters do not take place on a featureless plane. So, most of the time, when the rogue re-hides behind a pillar or bush the enemy has no way of knowing if he stayed behind the pillar or has moved on to places unknown. So popping back out could perceivably be a surprise the second time around, granting advantage.

As far as rulings on hiding go. Bodging the stealth roll means your probably not hidden if your target has a decent passive perception. Hiding behind a table, altar, other person in a brightly lit place means nothing when your target walks around it. Hiding stays a really iffy subject.

But we're getting into really specific rulings in really specific scenarios.

To get back to the OP. No, for me this is not a silly rule. Shooting someone in the face giving away your location is fine from a mechanical and immersion standpoint IMO.

Id definately tighten up on it, otherwise youre effectively granting advantage on every single attack thanks to bonus action hiding.

[Mara]

If you can't see the rogue (total concealment) and you cannot perceive his exact location (wis/perception) then I don't see the verisimilitude breaking action of the rogue popping around a box and sneak attacking foes.

So what if you know he is behind the box? That doesn't help you react to the attack. In real life, those who dodge arrows or bullets have to see where the bow or gun is pointed before it is fired. A stealthy rogue popping out from a box cuts that needed time drastically.

[Sjappo]

Id definately tighten up on it, otherwise youre effectively granting advantage on every single attack thanks to bonus action hiding.
Which is a problem how?

Comparing a melee rogue with flanking buddy and a ranged rogue sniping from hiding.
Melee rogue gets no advantage. He has a high chance to SA because of multiple attacks. Probably has one more attack due to 2 weapon fighting. This costs a bonus action though.
Ranged rogue gets advantage on his first attack and SA if it hits. No SA on other attacks because a miss gives away position. Uses a (bonus) action to re-hide.

Seems like a wash to me. Of course ranged has the bonus advantage of being out of harms way.

[silveralen]

If you can't see the rogue (total concealment) and you cannot perceive his exact location (wis/perception) then I don't see the verisimilitude breaking action of the rogue popping around a box and sneak attacking foes.

So what if you know he is behind the box? That doesn't help you react to the attack. In real life, those who dodge arrows or bullets have to see where the bow or gun is pointed before it is fired. A stealthy rogue popping out from a box cuts that needed time drastically.

Sneak attack doesn't represent surprise so much as making a more lethal strike when they have their defenses down.

Now, if they are focusing on an area where you aren't or are unaware of your presence, they are open. If an ally is distracting them they are open. If they are literally staring at your hiding spot waiting for you to pop out they aren't open. At all.

Consider that you jack in the box rouge literally has less idea where his enemies are located than his enemies do of him. They likely aren't standing in the same spot as when he ducked in, yet enemies know exactly where he is coming from. Both have to react, neither is really at an advantage. Honestly, given what little I know about real life gunfights, the rogue is probably in the worse position if his enemy is waiting on him (which I guess would be a held action). In that case he'd be screwed.

TL;DR each has one known and one unknown. Rogue knows when, but doesn't know where his enemy is exactly (possibly even roughly). Enemy knows exactly where the rogue will be but not when. Both have to react, it's basically if the rogue locates and fires at his enemy before they reac to his movement. Which isn't really advantageous for the rogue (requires more though to identify his target than pure reaction, which slows him down).

[Yagyujubei]

Think I will rule it that you know the general location for example if you shoot from a window in a large building they will know it's from one of the windows there most likely and it will make them start searching and make active perception rolls vs shooters stealth. To give it a cat and mouse feel.

perhaps a perception or insight check upon being hit to determine the origin of the attack.

[Mara]

If they are literally staring at your hiding spot waiting for you to pop out they aren't open. At all.

That's not what the rules say nor would I find that intuitive with reality.
You don't know exactly where the attack is going to come from (A 5ft square is not an exact location). The rogue does. The rogue is initiating the action, they will see you before you see them (you know because you DID fail your perception check).

EDIT: It's like saying a rogue with greater invisibility could not repeatedly sneak attack a foe. Sure the foe knows where the rogue is. They know the square the attack is coming from, they don't know the precise vector of the arrow. The reaction time you want to give foes negates all sneak attacks because they would automatically see the arrow as it flies out of cover/invisibility thus not open.

EDIT2: Even if the rogue told their foe that they would not move from a 5ft square and then UMD greater invisibility, they would still be able to sneak attack that foe repeatedly.

[silveralen]

That's not what the rules say nor would I find that intuitive with reality.
You don't know exactly where the attack is going to come from (A 5ft square is not an exact location). The rogue does. The rogue is initiating the action, they will see you before you see them (you know because you DID fail your perception check).

EDIT: It's like saying a rogue with greater invisibility could not repeatedly sneak attack a foe. Sure the foe knows where the rogue is. They know the square the attack is coming from, they don't know the precise vector of the arrow. The reaction time you want to give foes negates all sneak attacks because they would automatically see the arrow as it flies out of cover/invisibility thus not open.

EDIT2: Even if the rogue told their foe that they would not move from a 5ft square and then UMD greater invisibility, they would still be able to sneak attack that foe repeatedly.

The problem is "failed the perception check". I can see on both sides of the box clearly. No obscuring cover. I saw the rogue go in the box. How did I fail? This is the sort of thing you don't roll for, like seeing the barn in front of you.

No they wouldn't. They could make stealth checks to hide again sure, but talking pretty much means they auto fail that. If he attacks then immediately goes quiet it makes sense because you don't know if he has moved. That's what the stealth check means. You are no longer sure where the invisible rogue is. Maybe he is still in front of you, or maybe he is circling behind you. Technically speaking, any sort of stealth check in combat is DM discretion regardless.

But... if you still know for a fact he is exactly where he was before, he auto fails his stealth check. He can't hide, the enemy can pinpoint his location regardless of whether or not he can physically see him. At least, logically that would be what happens.

[themaque]

The problem is "failed the perception check". I can see on both sides of the box clearly. No obscuring cover. I saw the rogue go in the box. How did I fail? This is the sort of thing you don't roll for, like seeing the barn in front of you.

No they wouldn't. They could make stealth checks to hide again sure, but talking pretty much means they auto fail that. If he attacks then immediately goes quiet it makes sense because you don't know if he has moved. That's what the stealth check means. You are no longer sure where the invisible rogue is. Maybe he is still in front of you, or maybe he is circling behind you. Technically speaking, any sort of stealth check in combat is DM discretion regardless.

But... if you still know for a fact he is exactly where he was before, he auto fails his stealth check. He can't hide, the enemy can pinpoint his location regardless of whether or not he can physically see him. At least, logically that would be what happens.

I think most GM's would rule Jack-in-the-Box wouldn't work. Yeah if you are in a wide open area with only ONE place you could possibly be, that isn't really hiding. But if there was a variety of places to hide in, than it might? Like the previously mentioned copse of trees. You would know... somewhere over there.

[Malifice]

That's not what the rules say nor would I find that intuitive with reality.
You don't know exactly where the attack is going to come from (A 5ft square is not an exact location). The rogue does. The rogue is initiating the action, they will see you before you see them (you know because you DID fail your perception check).

EDIT: It's like saying a rogue with greater invisibility could not repeatedly sneak attack a foe. Sure the foe knows where the rogue is. They know the square the attack is coming from, they don't know the precise vector of the arrow. The reaction time you want to give foes negates all sneak attacks because they would automatically see the arrow as it flies out of cover/invisibility thus not open.

EDIT2: Even if the rogue told their foe that they would not move from a 5ft square and then UMD greater invisibility, they would still be able to sneak attack that foe repeatedly.

Ok; my Rogue in your campaign is going to carry around a plywood coffin. His first action each round is to drop it on the ground, then hop in with his movement, closing the lid as he does so (interact with object while moving). He then (once fully concealed) will use a bonus action (via cunning action) to 'hide'. Now that he is 'hidden' he'll then pop out and attack people who saw him do all this (with advantage and sneak attack) as his action.

Repeat each round.

RAW (by your interpretation of the hding rule) this works.

IRL this woldnt grant advantgage on any attacks made by the rogue. It would do the exact opposite.

[Mara]

IRL this woldnt grant advantgage on any attacks made by the rogue. It would do the exact opposite.

I disagree.

Though in real life combat, troops would just blast your box away with machine gun fire. Or storm your position. In D&D my mobs would get in melee range of your box, causing your attacks to have a disadvantage. Otherwise, "Jack-in-the-box" works just fine. This tactic in actual combat would work pretty well in preventing people from dodging your bullets (though most combat trained-people would find good cover to hide behind or storm your position).

I really don't see the issue. I must ask, where are people coming from with this complaint of verisimilitude? 3.5? 2e? 4e? PF?

[Mara]

The problem is "failed the perception check". I can see on both sides of the box clearly. No obscuring cover. I saw the rogue go in the box. How did I fail? This is the sort of thing you don't roll for, like seeing the barn in front of you.

No they wouldn't. They could make stealth checks to hide again sure, but talking pretty much means they auto fail that. If he attacks then immediately goes quiet it makes sense because you don't know if he has moved. That's what the stealth check means. You are no longer sure where the invisible rogue is. Maybe he is still in front of you, or maybe he is circling behind you. Technically speaking, any sort of stealth check in combat is DM discretion regardless.

But... if you still know for a fact he is exactly where he was before, he auto fails his stealth check. He can't hide, the enemy can pinpoint his location regardless of whether or not he can physically see him. At least, logically that would be what happens.

It's a good thing you aren't making the hide check as you go into cover. You make it once you are fully concealed. With the way movement, hiding, and attacks work in this edition, I do not see the RAW issue.

You could easily talk then hide.

Hiding has nothing to do with whether or not your location is know. You just have to be unseen and unheard at the time of hiding.

[Malifice]

I really don't see the issue. I must ask, where are people coming from with this complaint of verisimilitude? 3.5? 2e? 4e? PF?

Real life.

No warrior ever has carried around a cardboard box to hide in, and leap in and out of during combat, in full view of the enemy.

'Jack in the box' rogue is the result of stupid, unnecissary and needlessly OP reading of a class feature that is already strong.

'You cant hide when you can be seen means' (at the very least) 'If you can be seen at the start of yor turn, you cant hide during your turn'.

Any other reading of it provides an absurd result.

[silveralen]

It's a good thing you aren't making the hide check as you go into cover. You make it once you are fully concealed. With the way movement, hiding, and attacks work in this edition, I do not see the RAW issue.

You could easily talk then hide.

Hiding has nothing to do with whether or not your location is know. You just have to be unseen and unheard at the time of hiding.

Because it is fairly stupid? If you are hiding in a lone bush someone saw you dive into they know where you are. You aren't hidden. I'm not unsure of your location.

6 second combat round. I'll time a player who tries this. You better come in with a solid second or two to spare.

If they are truly invisible it'll work because they get advantage, which means an opening. Crouching in the lone bush 50 yards away where to shots just came doesn't seem to have the same level of uncertainty or advantage.

[Mara]

Because it is fairly stupid? If you are hiding in a lone bush someone saw you dive into they know where you are. You aren't hidden. I'm not unsure of your location.

6 second combat round. I'll time a player who tries this. You better come in with a solid second or two to spare.

If they are truly invisible it'll work because they get advantage, which means an opening. Crouching in the lone bush 50 yards away where to shots just came doesn't seem to have the same level of uncertainty or advantage.

It doesn't matter if you aware of my location. That has nothing to do with hiding as per the rules.

The verisimilitude complaint is more nuanced and trickier to just deny outright. As far as the rules of the game goes this is a non issue.

[silveralen]

It doesn't matter if you aware of my location. That has nothing to do with hiding as per the rules.

The verisimilitude complaint is more nuanced and trickier to just deny outright. As far as the rules of the game goes this is a non issue.

Yes it does. Hiding does not mean I can't see or hear you, those are the requirements to try and hide. Being hidden literally means I don't know where you are in 5e. That's what you roll for when you roll to hide.

[Mara]

Real life.

No warrior ever has carried around a cardboard box to hide in, and leap in and out of during combat, in full view of the enemy.

'Jack in the box' rogue is the result of stupid, unnecissary and needlessly OP reading of a class feature that is already strong.

'You cant hide when you can be seen means' (at the very least) 'If you can be seen at the start of yor turn, you cant hide during your turn'.

Any other reading of it provides an absurd result.

Solid snake via video games

ghillie suits are basically the real life version of this. Soldiers wear como for this reason too. Have you ever played Call of Duty? Even Turtle beaches (directional sound) and red arrow indicators, you may have trouble pinpointing someone 10 ft away from you, let alone 50ft. Heck jack in the box cover is used all the time is FPS multiplayer. The counter is to ready an action and blow the Jack's head off.

The more I think about this and the more personal experiences I go over, I see no reason for this not to work.

"'You cant hide when you can be seen means' (at the very least) 'If you can be seen at the start of yor turn, you cant hide during your turn'." -> Not what the rules say.

[Mara]

Yes it does. Hiding does not mean I can't see or hear you, those are the requirements to try and hide. Being hidden literally means I don't know where you are in 5e. That's what you roll for when you roll to hide.

And if I am behind a box and you failed your perception check, How do you know my exact body posture and positioning behind the box?

If someone is completely behind a curtain and you try to shoot them, would you not attack at a disadvantage?

[Myzz]

the problem is, you don't "know" the attacker is there... You "think" the attacker is there...

Ex: Party is walking through an endless stretch of grassland and is approaching a Lone shade tree. They all fail thier perception check vs the sniper lying in wait near the tree... At about 100 ft from the tree a crossbow bolt is fired from the sniper. The bolt seems to have come from the right hand side of the tree. The bolt hits a party member... The party now "knows" there is a sniper dead ahead at the tree. Since the only cover is the tree, they assume the shot orignated from a sniper hiding behind the tree.

What they don't know is that about 30 ft behind the tree is a small depression in the grassland, and that the sniper is lying in said depression and intentionally fired his shot so that it appeared to come from the tree. As the party spreads out to Flank the tree they will then realize that he is not actually at the tree...

Should the second shot be at advantage?

Per RAW nope...

Per Common Sense... Yup..

[MrStabby]

If the requirement to "hide" is merely to not be seen then a fighter who cant be seen behind his full plate mail is suddenly a master of stealth.

[Mara]

If the requirement to "hide" is merely to not be seen then a fighter who cant be seen behind his full plate mail is suddenly a master of stealth. Seen or heard.

Plate be noisy.

[EvanescentHero]

Solid snake via video games

...really? Seriously, you're actually using Snake here?

...fine. Guess what happens when the guards see the box moving? They open fire. When you pop out of the box and they see you, they open fire. If the box has moved or appeared since the last time they saw it, chances are they're going to investigate it (well, in real life; Metal Gear's guards are so stupid they don't deserve to call themselves that). Even if your enemies don't immediately start plinking your box with arrows or run up to smash it to pieces while you're completely unable to defend yourself or move, chances are they'll wait for you to show yourself and then shoot you in the face.

This situation is ridiculous and I find it difficult to believe that anyone is actually arguing FOR it.

[Mara]

...really? Seriously, you're actually using Snake here?

...fine. Guess what happens when the guards see the box moving? They open fire. When you pop out of the box and they see you, they open fire. If the box has moved or appeared since the last time they saw it, chances are they're going to investigate it (well, in real life; Metal Gear's guards are so stupid they don't deserve to call themselves that). Even if your enemies don't immediately start plinking your box with arrows or run up to smash it to pieces while you're completely unable to defend yourself or move, chances are they'll wait for you to show yourself and then shoot you in the face.

This situation is ridiculous and I find it difficult to believe that anyone is actually arguing FOR it. There are not a lot of military forces out there that would shoot a box for moving. Now if the box moved into the kill zone, then sure.

Now maybe people like ISIS would shoot animate cardboard boxes for violating some tenet or another, but that is about it.

Idk about you but if I was investigating a moving box and a midget with a cross bow jumped out of it and shot me, I would be very surprised. At much as I know something is in there, I cannot see the crossbow's bolt vector ahead of time to make anysort of dodging maneuver.

[EvanescentHero]

There are not a lot of military forces out there that would shoot a box for moving. Now if the box moved into the kill zone, then sure.

Now maybe people like ISIS would shoot animate cardboard boxes for violating some tenet or another, but that is about it.

Idk about you but if I was investigating a moving box and a midget with a cross bow jumped out of it and shot me, I would be very surprised. At much as I know something is in there, I cannot see the crossbow's bolt vector ahead of time to make anysort of dodging maneuver.

They can see your legs under the box. Anyone hiding isn't supposed to be there. Sure, they might not fire upon first seeing it move, but if they told you to surrender and you started shooting them, they'd certainly shoot back.

Meanwhile, yes, you'd be surprised the first time, but if the person then jumped back in the box, guess what? You know where they are and they have no way of knowing where you are. Plus you and all your friends are now aiming your guns at the box and waiting for the target to jump out so that every single one of you can blast his head off. So explain to me exactly how you think the rogue in this situation is at an advantage?

[Mara]

They can see your legs under the box. Anyone hiding isn't supposed to be there. Sure, they might not fire upon first seeing it move, but if they told you to surrender and you started shooting them, they'd certainly shoot back.

Meanwhile, yes, you'd be surprised the first time, but if the person then jumped back in the box, guess what? You know where they are and they have no way of knowing where you are. Plus you and all your friends are now aiming your guns at the box and waiting for the target to jump out so that every single one of you can blast his head off. So explain to me exactly how you think the rogue in this situation is at an advantage?

If I do not know where they are pointing the crossbow, then I would have no way to reasonably dodge it.

If I could infer where the crossbow is pointing (a successful perception check) then I could make a dodging maneuver (thus no advantage).

This idea that you can just spidey sense your way around sneak attacks seems verisimilitude breaking for me.

The rogue is initiating action when he pops out, he can look and shoot faster than I could spot him, spot the crossbow vector, and then dodge.

EDIT: I think one of the issues here is that many of us are thinking in terms of grid combat, thus a 5ft square is an exact location. Formal grid combat is optional in 5e. A 5ft square is not an exact location. (not that location has anything to do with the hide rules. I think people are applying rules logic to their sense of verisimilitude. 5ft square = exact location because those are the rules I play with, therefore IRL knowing someone is in a 5ft square would prevent any advantage because I KNOW that 5ft squared is significant enough precision to infer exact positioning)

[Mjolnirbear]

When you attack from hiding, you reveal yourself.

When you can be seen by the enemy you cannot hide. An enemy is considered to be paying attention to everything around him, and thus cannot be attacked from behind nor can someone hide behind his back.

If you are invisible, but you have been detected by sound or smell, they may attack you at disadvantage. But you are invisible. Invisibility means you cannot be seen. Therefore you may use the Hide action even if you have been located. This allows you to move to a location where your enemy cannot locate you.

Logically this means that if you Attack from hiding, reveal yourself, and duck back down, then until you Hide, your location is known. If you do not have Total Cover or Heavy Obscurity, though, you are seen and thus cannot hide.

Let us suppose you have total cover. And so you Hide. Your location is still known. You cannot be seen, and thus attacks against you will have disadvantage. But because your location is known, an enemy will be paying attention for attacks from that location, and will not be surprised when you pop up because he will see you pop up, thus removing the Advantage before you can launch your attack, thus removing Sneak Attack.

Therefore if you wish to gain an attack advantage from being hidden after the first attack, you must move, while hidden, to another location. Your current location has been ruined for the purposes of sneak attack. It is still entirely valid for the purposes of cover or line of sight.

A rogue in melee combat gets sneak attacks for an entirely different reason. He's up close and personal and can exploit the flow of battle and the distraction that his allies bring. He will be more likely to get sneak attack, perhaps every round. But he has neither advantage, nor cover. He is exposed and can be attacked.




If you want (nearly) guaranteed sneak attacks, you must put yourself at risk. If you want (nearly) guaranteed safety from attacks, you must sacrifice frequent and regular sneak attacks.

It is unreasonable, OP and unfair to expect someone to rule that you get Sneak Attack, Advantage, and protection from your enemies when the rogue brave enough to get into the thick of it gets only Sneak Attack.


There are certainly times something in the flow of battle may offer an exception or alternate possibility (perhaps the enemy was Dazed and became dizzy, forgetting to pay attention. Perhaps you are wearing a gillie suit). That is why we have DM fiat. He can look at it and say yes, it is logical that this time you get sneak attack.

[silveralen]

If I do not know where they are pointing the crossbow, then I would have no way to reasonably dodge it.

If I could infer where the crossbow is pointing (a successful perception check) then I could make a dodging maneuver (thus no advantage).

This idea that you can just spidey sense your way around sneak attacks seems verisimilitude breaking for me.

The rogue is initiating action when he pops out, he can look and shoot faster than I could spot him, spot the crossbow vector, and then dodge.

Well, realistically whether you can see the shooter is irrelevant over a decent distance. You can't make out well enough to see when he pulls the trigger. Instead, you see the movement of the bolt.

Your last paragraph is just wrong. By popping out, you must locate the enemy and fire at them, a much more intensive task then simply waiting for movement then firing. That's why, if you are behind cover, peaking your head up to shoot someone often gets you killed before you get a shot off.

It's breaking versimiltude for you because you don't seem to know how it actually works irl if I'm honest.

[Mjolnirbear]

Furthermore, who is talking about dodging crossbows? If someone walks up to me with a crossbow and pulls the trigger, there will be no dodging. But neither will you get advantage.

You get advantage because I am surprised, flatfooted, unaware and unable to react. If I know you are there, I'm still not likely to dodge. But I can react, therefore removing your advantage and thus your sneak attack.

[Mara]

It is unreasonable, OP and unfair to expect someone to rule that you get Sneak Attack, Advantage, and protection from your enemies when the rogue brave enough to get into the thick of it gets only Sneak Attack.

This sounds more like an appeal to mechanical balance rather than the rules or even verisimilitude. I disagree and I don't have to justify that sense we are not discussing mechanical balance.

[Mara]

It's breaking versimiltude for you because you don't seem to know how it actually works irl if I'm honest. Do share your personal experience of fighting high level rogues.

[silveralen]

This sounds more like an appeal to mechanical balance rather than the rules or even verisimilitude. I disagree and I don't have to justify that sense we are not discussing mechanical balance.

So... you are hanging your argument on the "I can dodge crossbows by seeing when he pulls the trigger" bit? Because that's nt verisimilitude at all.


Do share your personal experience of fighting high level rogues.

Oh please. So nothing matters because it's fantasy?

[Mara]

So... you are hanging your argument on the "I can dodge crossbows by seeing when he pulls the trigger" bit? Because that's nt verisimilitude at all.



Oh please. So nothing matters because it's fantasy?


We're arguing verisimilitude. IRL you aren't going to dodge a bolt because you saw it. You could dodge it if you inferred where it was going to be shot at and move before then.

Really, I don't see HP as meat, so you could very well block a bolt as you see it when you are a high level character. You will still take the sneak attack damage. That was a difficult block to make and if you didn't make it the bolt might have ruptured your heart.

You said your IRL experience was better than mine, so I assumed you had more relevant stories to share. My fault for not realizing you were just asserting your opinion as more valid without the need to base it on anything.

[silveralen]

We're arguing verisimilitude. IRL you aren't going to dodge a bolt because you saw it. You could dodge it if you inferred where it was going to be shot at and move before then.

Really, I don't see HP as meat, so you could very well block a bolt as you see it when you are a high level character. You will still take the sneak attack damage. That was a difficult block to make and if you didn't make it the bolt might have ruptured your heart.

You said your IRL experience was better than mine, so I assumed you had more relevant stories to share. My fault for not realizing you were just asserting your opinion as more valid without the need to base it on anything.

No you aren't. You don't need to know where it is going because, helpful hint, it's you.

But it is no harder than any other crossbow bolt. He is in the bush 50 yards away. You can't see when he fires regardless, the muscle movement is tiny , and you know he is aiming at you either way (and no, you won't be able to pinpoint where exactly he is aiming tiny changes of angle to take microsecond to make can move the Impact point from your head to your chest). Nothing changes unless you don't know his location, in which case the origin of the shot comes into question.

Well yes. Because you mentioned dodging bullets earlier in this thread.

[Mara]

Well yes. Because you mentioned dodging bullets earlier in this thread.
My father did SERT (SWAT for the DOC).

Yes it is part of their training to at least be aware of the idea that bullets go where the gun is being pointed. Standing orders were to avoid that vector as much as possible (which is more doable against untrained mentality unstable inmates that somehow got hold of a gun).

Obviously not much time is spent on this topic. The concept is critical though at all team maneuvers (never swipe your gun across a friendly). EDIT: Time must be given because federal agents can bring guns into the facility among other rare situations

For the most part, there is not much difference between dodging a bullet and dodging a crossbow bolt or for that matter a high draw strength longbow arrow.

[Mara]

No you aren't. You don't need to know where it is going because, helpful hint, it's you.

Once again. A 5ft square is not an exact location. That is rules logic not an appeal to verisimilitude.

[Mjolnirbear]

This sounds more like an appeal to mechanical balance rather than the rules or even verisimilitude. I disagree and I don't have to justify that sense we are not discussing mechanical balance.

And thus reduce my entire post down to this line and dismiss it. Ignoring logic and rules along the way.

You don't, actually, have to prove anything to anyone. But if you weren't trying to prove something, or trying to convince someone, then you wouldn't be here in this thread.

If you are the DM, rule as you wish. If you are a player, try to convince your DM. But if you try to say "everyone on the boards agrees with me" then I sincerely hopes he boots you from the group.

To me, it makes sense logically, it makes sense mechanically, it makes sense balance-wise, and it makes sense RAW and rules as (apparently) intended.



But to counter your point that we are not discussing mechanical balance, I would ask why the hell not? "Oh, it makes sense logically, but mechanically it completely unbalances sorcerors and turns them into gods" or "I can see this making a level 2 monk as powerful as a level 10 fighter, but since we're not discussing mechanical balance then it's okay" would be quite silly to hear, and if you said it I would think you silly for saying it. So why is this the exception? Why do you think you get a pass here?

[silveralen]

My father did SERT (SWAT for the DOC).

Yes it is part of their training to at least be aware of the idea that bullets go where the gun is being pointed. Standing orders were to avoid that vector as much as possible (which is more doable against untrained mentality unstable inmates that somehow got hold of a gun).

Obviously not much time is spent on this topic. The concept is critical though at all team maneuvers (never swipe your gun across a friendly). EDIT: Time must be given because federal agents can bring guns into the facility among other rare situations

For the most part, there is not much difference between dodging a bullet and dodging a crossbow bolt or for that matter a high draw strength longbow arrow.

Yes you don't stand in front of a gun if possible. No that is not dodging. No you cannot react to a shot, you either keep something between you and the gun or you stay mobile until you can find cover, or just minimize your profile. Yes, it is literally better to drop to the ground, more or less removing your ability to move quickly, then try to dodge a gun.

This is not dodging. None of this is based on reacting to a shot. Also, very different dodging a bullet and an arrow, mainly because a bullet travels over 10 times as fast and is practically invisible in motion. As in... no you aren't. Except at extreme ranges (where you won't even be aware of the shot) the bullet just moves too fast compared to a human (for a rifle, over 100 times faster than an Olympic sprinter's peak, much less initial movement overcoming inertia).

But you can dodge an arrow. It doesn't matter if you see the person so long as you see the arrow before it gets too close. So, for instance, someone launches an arrow from the bush you are staring at. Realistically the bush doesn't help. It buys the person firing a couple nano seconds. But, if he were surprised (as in, not expecting anyone to shoot him), his reaction time would be lower. That's a sneak attack. As is an attack you cannot react to visually (invisibility). Being in the bush is irrelevant so long as thye know where you are (and yes, five ft is exact for this purpose)

http://www.mythbusterstheexhibition.com/science-content/dodge-a-bullet/ might be a decent place to start, has some helpful links to velocity charts at least.

[EvanescentHero]

The rogue is initiating action when he pops out, he can look and shoot faster than I could spot him, spot the crossbow vector, and then dodge.

First of all, my ass. In this scenario, you have your gun (or bow) trained on the box already. You know where he is, and he doesn't necessarily know where you are, so it's far easier and quicker for you to pull the trigger (or release the arrow) than it is for him to look around, spot you, aim, and make his own shot. Secondly, you don't have to dodge the bolt if you know what you're doing, because the instant he pops out, you take a shot at him, which would presumably stop him from shooting you.

You're just completely ignoring the fact that you know where the rogue is in this scenario, and thus would make sure you shoot him before he shoots you.

[Sjappo]

Comparing DnD to real life only leads to madness. DnD is a model of a fictional fantasy world. Reality has checked out.

Whether or not verisimilitude is broken by the pop up rogue is for the players and DM to decide. Myself, I can live with a lot seeing as there are people running around shooting flames from their hands at dragons and giants. Same goes for dual wielding hand crossbows in my opinion.

The pop up rogue only becomes a problem if it is mechanically superior to all other options. In my experience it isn't. It is a strong option but it isn't always viable. Because there is no place to hide of because ranges are to short to stay out of melee. Or because other melee combatants provide cover. Or ... The melee rogue with flanking buddy does not have these problems.

[Mara]

You're just completely ignoring the fact that you know where the rogue is in this scenario, and thus would make sure you shoot him before he shoots you.

So ready that action then. As a DM, I would then rule the rogue doesn't get a sneak attack.

How some of you guys want to run this situation, 5 rogues around five pillars couldn't sneak attack you standing in the middle of them.

That seems far more verisimilitude breaking than a jack-in-the-box.

[silveralen]

So ready that action then. As a DM, I would then rule the rogue doesn't get a sneak attack.

How some of you guys want to run this situation, 5 rogues around five pillars couldn't sneak attack you standing in the middle of them.

That seems far more verisimilitude breaking than a jack-in-the-box.

Yeah it would. Because he can't pay attention to all 5.

One guy? Nope he doesn't.

The PHB says you can't hide in combat unless the DM decides there is a good reason. Like one guy trying to track five people. Not a hard call at all.

So no I wouldn't. Good job assuming though.

[Battlebooze]

Lol. Crawling around in a box to get sneak attacks...

I've been thinking about an Arcane Trickster archer that uses Leomund's Tiny Hut as a tiny turret of death. You want scary? That is scary!

[Mjolnirbear]

So ready that action then. As a DM, I would then rule the rogue doesn't get a sneak attack.

How some of you guys want to run this situation, 5 rogues around five pillars couldn't sneak attack you standing in the middle of them.

That seems far more verisimilitude breaking than a jack-in-the-box.

The first time, of course they could.

People are mixing up Sneak Attack with Advantage. Hiding doesn't give you sneak attack, it gives you advantage. You get advantage for the same reason you would if I were paralysed, restrained, stunned or unconscious: because I am unaware of and/or cannot react to your attack.

After that, I am aware of your location. I am wary. I can react. I am forewarned. I am NOT STUPID. The rules specifically say that someone who attacks from hiding has revealed themselves. If you jump behind the curtain and I can no longer see you, I do not magically forget you are there, and I will not be surprised when you jump back out and shout "BOO". This is how it will remain until you, the hider, change the situation.

Such changes include:
* your five guys behind five pillars (though I would counter argue if there were five arrows and five pillars, I can figure things out. Still, I can see the argument).
* You used your bonus action to hide, then moved to another location from which I am not expecting your attack.
* I am a goblin or ogre, and am actually very stupid. In which case, as a DM I might let you get two or three sneak attacks from there before needing to change the situation. No more: because even an animal can figure out where such a threat might come from.
* you cast Invisibility and move *anywhere*.
* you throw a tapestry over his head so he cannot see
* the fighter makes a called shot and the target is blinded from blood in its eyes or sand kicked up into its face



The rules for hiding are very very simple and there aren't many.
1) Page 177 of the PHB: You can't hide from a creature that can see you
2) (same page) In combat most creatures stay alert for signs of danger, so if you come out of hiding a creature usually sees you. The DM may allow certain circumstances to allow you to stay hidden. If you are hidden when you attack a creature, you gain Advantage.
3) (same page) A creature might see you even if you are hidden, if its passive or active perception check is superior to your hide roll.
4) (Page 195, PHB) If you are hidden when you attack, you give away your location (whether the attack hits or misses).
5) (same page) When a creature can't see you, you have advantage on attack rolls against it.
6) Some creatures, such as halflings, get special chances for hiding (in this case, if you are lightly obscured by a larger creature).
7) Invisibility allows you to take the hide action even if not obscured by cover. Your location may be revealed by noise or tracks but you are still invisible; this means you still get advantage on your first attack, but they can now attack you (at disadvantage, because of blindness).

Hiding is thus hard to do in the middle of a fight.

Therefore if you failed to hide before combat, you need to create circumstances that allow you to stay hidden. The first round, if the target is unaware of you (you hid before combat, for instance) and you pop out, then you get Advantage--the creature was not aware of you, it was not looking for hidden danger, it was surprised, and you get to roll sneak attack dice. After that, use illusions, or darkness, or hidden movement, or shadows, or lack of light if you have darkvision and he does not (multiclass warlock invocations, anyone?). You need to convince the DM that your effort to attack from hiding is reasonable given rules 1, 2, 3 and 4.


If you want to sneak attack without all that effort? Wade into melee. Cunning Action is not a "free sneak attack button". It is a defensive ability. You gain cover or obscurity. You can't be targeted with line-of-sight spells or with any kind of melee or ranged weapon attack. You disengage safely or dash far out of range. And once in a while, if you are intelligent in your usage, you might get to take a potshot from hiding.





All this, of course, is my game and my interpretation. If you are a DM, interpret how you wish. If you are a player, then beg the DM to accept your interpretation as you wish. But if you call me wrong, then show me IN THE RULES how I am wrong. Don't bring verisimilitude or 'my dad was in the armed forces' into the argument, because this is a game. Reality has no place here.

[Mara]

All this, of course, is my game and my interpretation. If you are a DM, interpret how you wish.
Guess who is the DM :smalltongue:

Verisimilitude arguments are neither here nor there for me, I default to what the rules say when running the game. The rules state that you can hide when you are not seen and if the enemy fails the perception check.

Now the rules seem to want one to infer that if your position is known then that is equivalent to a successful perception check. This confusion comes from the rules saying you know where the person is if they make noise. You are lead to infer that making noise is auto-failing your stealth check. Of course that does not go the other way. A person knowing where you are from a previous attack is not them auto-passing a perception check. The rules do not say that. If then logic does not flow in the reverse direction in deductive logic.

They also state that an invisible creature can always hide because they are not seen. Thus my ruling is that being able to hide is completely dependent on whether or not you can be seen. It does not matter if the target knows where you are or not.

A foe with the alert feat is immune to this tactic, a foe taking the dodge action negates this advantage, and I would rule certain ready actions as a way to counter jack-in-box rogues.

[silveralen]

You ignored the "enemies in combat are normally too alert to be hidden from" bit.

Rules wise, you are wrong. Verisimilitude? Nope. Balance? Nope.

You have no good reason for this. Feel free to do so if you want but I have no idea why you are so set on introducing an overpowered tactic that's neither realistic not supported by the rules.

[Mara]

You ignored the "enemies in combat are normally too alert to be hidden from" bit.

Full quote:

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."

'AND' changes the meaning vastly from the piecemeal quote you provided.

[EvanescentHero]

Full quote:

"In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you."

'AND' changes the meaning vastly from the piecemeal quote you provided.

So in this interpretation, a creature who's hiding can't be found when they poke their head out into full view of their enemies unless the creature then starts ambling towards them? I don't buy it.

[Mara]

So in this interpretation, a creature who's hiding can't be found when they poke their head out into full view of their enemies unless the creature then starts ambling towards them? I don't buy it.
They can be found...

with a successful perception check.

[EvanescentHero]

They can be found...

with a successful perception check.

If someone is looking right at you when you poke your head out, they don't need a perception check to see you. They just see you.

[Gritmonger]

First off, this is way too close to a Monty Python sketch at this point,

Second, I'd rule that "hidden" after the first attack from inside the box is "hidden" in the same sense as your kidney is hidden from view. Attacks have disadvantage to target you directly, but the cover/concealment can be attacked with advantage as it isn't moving. Effectively while you are invisible for practical purposes, your cover is immobile and incapacitated.

[Mara]

If someone is looking right at you when you poke your head out, they don't need a perception check to see you. They just see you.
That would be a ready action or the dodge action.

Foes are assumed to be looking everywhere at once during combat. They don't have the luxury to focus on your spot passively.

[Gritmonger]

The strange assumption seems to be that as soon as you enter a D&D universe, you lose the object permanence feat you got from being a toddler...

[EvanescentHero]

That would be a ready action or the dodge action.

Foes are assumed to be looking everywhere at once during combat. They don't have the luxury to focus on your spot passively.

What action, exactly, are they readying to see you? The Look action? The Having Eyes action? If someone knows you're around and is trying to be alert about your location (i.e., how anyone acts in combat), they're going to notice you when you put yourself in full view. No check needed.

[Gritmonger]

What action, exactly, are they readying to see you? The Look action? The Having Eyes action? If someone knows you're around and is trying to be alert about your location (i.e., how anyone acts in combat), they're going to notice you when you put yourself in full view. No check needed.

Right. There is no check required to assume you are in the same cover - this is the default assumption of anybody over six months of age or so. Also the reason "peekaboo" eventually loses its entertainment value. And also why you move from cover to cover away from where you popped up last.

[Mara]

The strange assumption seems to be that as soon as you enter a D&D universe, you lose the object permanence feat you got from being a toddler...

Hiding is all about whether or not you can see them. It has nothing to do with knowing their location.

The rules are clear. The only argument you have is one of verisimilitude. Which in the grands scheme of things does not matter. Verisimilitude is subjective and not a good reason to alter the rules just because you don't like range rogues.

[Mara]

What action, exactly, are they readying to see you? The Look action? The Having Eyes action? If someone knows you're around and is trying to be alert about your location (i.e., how anyone acts in combat), they're going to notice you when you put yourself in full view. No check needed.

Under that situation, the foe then is not looking behind himself, thus all foes behind him would have the advantage. That is no where in the rules, so I will not assume a jack-in-the-box rogue can force an enemy to give advantage to the enemy behind him.

The perception check determines whether or not you see the rogue as he is attacking you in the chaos of combat (the check is an abstraction). If you want to ready some sort of improvised action to handle the rogue, you can, but it comes at the cost of using that action. You don't get to do that for free.

[Gritmonger]

Hiding is all about whether or not you can see them. It has nothing to do with knowing their location.

The rules are clear. The only argument you have is one of verisimilitude. Which in the grands scheme of things does not matter. Verisimilitude is subjective and not a good reason to alter the rules just because you don't like range rogues.

If you don't move between shot one and two, hide doesn't matter for attack, only in targeting you. If you move, it does matter for attack, especially if your move is partly or entirely behind cover or concealment. Rogue-in-a-box is silly.

[Gritmonger]

Nothing that you just said is in the rules.

Correct. Neither is my implementation of trip as a shove with only the option to knock prone. Or the unique potions I've given some of my bad guys. Or the Basilisk with no gaze attack. Or the random outsider conjured by accident. Or the amalgamated creation of throwing half a rat, two goblin hands and a foot into a magic circle.

And I would never as a DM try and go rules as interpreted in this thread for a sniper and be able to look my military-experienced players in the face, especially if I tried to use it against them.

It is silly.

[Mara]

Correct. Well I am glad we agree on that.

Run it as you want at your table.

[EvanescentHero]

Under that situation, the foe then is not looking behind himself, thus all foes behind him would have the advantage. That is no where in the rules, so I will not assume a jack-in-the-box rogue can force an enemy to give advantage to the enemy behind him.

The perception check determines whether or not you see the rogue as he is attacking you in the chaos of combat (the check is an abstraction). If you want to ready some sort of improvised action to handle the rogue, you can, but it comes at the cost of using that action. You don't get to do that for free.

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Nothing you're saying makes sense. But whatever. Have fun running enemies with no object permanence. I'm sure everyone will want to play a rogue in your campaign when they realize they can hide in a crate and completely destroy the opposition in your wacky combats.

[Mara]

I don't even know what you're arguing anymore. Nothing you're saying makes sense. But whatever. Have fun running enemies with no object permanence. I'm sure everyone will want to play a rogue in your campaign when they realize they can hide in a crate and completely destroy the opposition in your wacky combats.

You are not thinking through the consequences of your interpretations. You want to say that foes would just stare at the box the rogue popped out of. What you don't realize is in that situation a fighter could then come behind the foe and have advantage. Since the game does not assume facing mechanics, your interpretation of foes just staring at the box constantly makes no sense within the rules and has no precedent.

You are changing the rules with your interpretations and making them for more complicated than they actually are.

[EvanescentHero]

You are not thinking through the consequences of your interpretations. You want to say that foes would just stare at the box the rogue popped out of. What you don't realize is in that situation a fighter could then come behind the foe and have advantage. Since the game does not assume facing mechanics, your interpretation of foes just staring at the box constantly makes no sense within the rules and has no precedent.

You are changing the rules with your interpretations and making them for more complicated than they actually are.

And your interpretation directly contradicts the rules that say that when you fire a shot, you give away your position. In your interpretation, someone can jump out of the box, fire a shot, duck back into the box, and then expect to be able to use the same tactic next turn without moving, even though the enemies now know where that player is. Do you grant advantage to every single attack roll that comes from behind a combatant, even when the attacker isn't explicitly trying to hide or sneak? Because if so, then you're the one changing the rules, not me.

[Mara]

And your interpretation directly contradicts the rules that say that when you fire a shot, you give away your position. In your interpretation, someone can jump out of the box, fire a shot, duck back into the box, and then expect to be able to use the same tactic next turn without moving, even though the enemies now know where that player is. Do you grant advantage to every single attack roll that comes from behind a combatant, even when the attacker isn't explicitly trying to hide or sneak? Because if so, then you're the one changing the rules, not me.

You said nothing that actually relates to the hide rules. You can hide when you are not seen. Your position being known has nothing to do with that.

Conflating 'knowing location" and "seeing" is the issue you are having.

[EvanescentHero]

You said nothing that actually relates to the hide rules. You can hide when you are not seen. Your position being known has nothing to do with that.

Conflating 'knowing location" and "seeing" is the issue you are having.

The issue I'm having is that this scenario is completely ridiculous.

Fine. After you take your shot, you think the opponent doesn't look in that direction and see you duck back into the box, thus rendering you unable to hide?

[Mara]

The issue I'm having is that this scenario is completely ridiculous.

Fine. After you take your shot, you think the opponent doesn't look in that direction and see you duck back into the box, thus rendering you unable to hide?

Does the opponent see the rogue when they hide?
Not does the opponent see the rogue when they go out of sight.

Seeing the rogue move out of sight does not mean you see them when they spend their bonus action to hide.

To hide, you just have to be out of sight. No other qualifications must be met.

[silveralen]

Hiding is all about whether or not you can see them. It has nothing to do with knowing their location.

PG 177 PHB


You can't hide from a creature that can see you, and if you make a noise you give away your position. An invisible creature can't be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of it's passage might still be noticed however, and it still has to stay quiet.

I want you to read that. Really read that.

Is not being seen hidden? No, they explicitly say being unseen is not the same as being hidden. They point out that noise can give away your position, which means detecting you. They point out signs of a creatures passage can give them away if invisible, letting people locate them.

Hiding is concealing your location. If they know your location, you are not hidden, regardless of whether or not they can see you.


The rules are clear.

Yes they are.

[JAL_1138]

Case by case basis, I'd say. If you're 100 yards away from enemies that are engaged in a fierce melee with the entire rest of the party, I'd (probably, 95% of the time, depends on exact circumstances) let you use the same bit of cover without moving.

If you're fifteen feet away behind the only shrub in an open field, or holding a towel up to shield yourself from view, no dice. Unless you're fighting the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, of course.

Edit: In terms of rules, I agree with Silveralen, Malifice, et al. there's cases I'd allow jack-in-the-box'ing anyway.

[EvanescentHero]

Unless you're fighting the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, of course.

I can't believe that as a DM, I have to houserule prices for towels. Come on, WotC, get it together.

[JAL_1138]

I can't believe that as a DM, I have to houserule prices for towels. Come on, WotC, get it together.

I know! How are we supposed to convert Spelljammer (or play itinerant wanderers generally) if we don't know where our towels are, or how much one might cost to acquire?

[Battlebooze]

Case by case basis, I'd say. If you're 100 yards away from enemies that are engaged in a fierce melee with the entire rest of the party, I'd (probably, 95% of the time, depends on exact circumstances) let you use the same bit of cover without moving.

If you're fifteen feet away behind the only shrub in an open field, or holding a towel up to shield yourself from view, no dice. Unless you're fighting the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal, of course.

Edit: In terms of rules, I agree with Silveralen, Malifice, et al. there's cases I'd allow jack-in-the-box'ing anyway.

Above underlined goes without saying, of course.

Also, illustrating real life examples of hiding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4 How not to be seen.

[Gritmonger]

Above underlined goes without saying, of course.

Also, illustrating real life examples of hiding. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifmRgQX82O4 How not to be seen.

I KNEW that was going to come up! I said so upthread! This SO reminded me of that...

[Strill]

The first time, of course they could.

People are mixing up Sneak Attack with Advantage. Hiding doesn't give you sneak attack, it gives you advantage. You get advantage for the same reason you would if I were paralysed, restrained, stunned or unconscious: because I am unaware of and/or cannot react to your attack.

After that, I am aware of your location. I am wary. I can react. I am forewarned. I am NOT STUPID. The rules specifically say that someone who attacks from hiding has revealed themselves. If you jump behind the curtain and I can no longer see you, I do not magically forget you are there, and I will not be surprised when you jump back out and shout "BOO". This is how it will remain until you, the hider, change the situation.

What you're describing is covered by Surprised. When you attack an unwary opponent to start combat, they're surprised and can't respond in the first round. You can hide behind the pillars as much as you want and get advantage as much as you want. Your opponents will know where you are, but you'll still get advantage on your attacks.


Hiding is all about whether or not you can see them. It has nothing to do with knowing their location.

The rules are clear. The only argument you have is one of verisimilitude. Which in the grands scheme of things does not matter. Verisimilitude is subjective and not a good reason to alter the rules just because you don't like range rogues.

That's not correct at all. You can be invisible, but not be hidden. While you are hidden, enemies do not know where you are. In order to become hidden, enemies must not be able to see you, and you must use the Hide action.

So, for example, if you have Greater Invisibility, and use an attack, enemies will know your location, and will be able to attack your location with disadvantage. They will continue to know your location, in spite of your invisibility, until such time that you use the Hide action to mask your location.

[Mara]

PG 177 PHB



I want you to read that. Really read that.

Is not being seen hidden? No, they explicitly say being unseen is not the same as being hidden. They point out that noise can give away your position, which means detecting you. They point out signs of a creatures passage can give them away if invisible, letting people locate them.

Hiding is concealing your location. If they know your location, you are not hidden, regardless of whether or not they can see you.



Yes they are.
Oh good, I get to repeat myself now:

"Now the rules seem to want one to infer that if your position is known then that is equivalent to a successful perception check. This confusion comes from the rules saying you know where the person is if they make noise. You are lead to infer that making noise is auto-failing your stealth check. Of course that does not go the other way. A person knowing where you are from a previous attack is not them auto-passing a perception check. The rules do not say that. If then logic does not flow in the reverse direction in deductive logic."

Invisible creatures still have to pass that stealth check to hide. It is not an auto success. That is what the mention of how to detect invisible creatures means.

[Mara]

You can be invisible, but not be hidden. This is true. Invisible creatures still have to pass the stealth check to hide.

Knowing a targets location does not prevent them from hiding. To hide you must be unseen. That is it. It is starting to get rather frustrating at how people keep wanting to infer or read more into the rules than is actually there.

You know there was a really long PF thread about whether a rogue could sneak attack more than once per round. There was no indication in the PF rules that rogues had a sneak attack limit, but many people "felt" that more than once per round was wrong. That is what this thread reminds me of. People want to replace clear concise rules with vague feelings.

It's funny how rogues are the only ones who can hide as a bonus action, yet people seem to get upset when rogues actually make use of the action economy that gives them. You guys just "feel" that things are "wrong" and then just pretend that the rules reinforce that. Basic logic would help anyone of you see the flaw in that.

EDIT: And this is the point where I need to step away from the keyboard. You all enjoy your home games!

[JAL_1138]

Verisimilitude is a great reason to change the rules. It's why I let people bludgeon with spear-hafts, stab with longswords, stab with the big spearpoint on the top end of a halberd, slash with shortswords, bludgeon with the back of an axe, pierce with the spike on a warhammer, use a horseshoe as brass knuckles, throw sand in people's eyes, use bags of flour to find tripwires and invisible foes, sharpen 10ft poles into pikes against rust monsters, break them to make clubs or torches, use Mage Hand to drop 10-lb bricks on people's heads, coup-de-grace enemies that are KO'd, restrained, or sleeping when plausible, stab out an unconscious enemy's eyes if it's too big to coup-de-grace plausibly, pour acid into locks, get advantage on Strength checks by improvising levers or using cheater-pipes, rig up harpoons out of ballistas to bring down large flying enemies, target the wings of large flying enemies, call shots in certain other circumstances, load catapults with grapeshot, let the Tarrasque fling rubble and buildings at flying characters, let people start avalanches or at least roll boulders, logs, and mill-wheels downhill, rally the townsfolk to build anti-cavalry obstacle-walls out of sharp sticks to stop bandit raiders, set up ropes to clothesline mounted enemies, intimidate by sheer force or being staggeringly well-armed in certain cases, play on eyewitness unreliability by using gaudy clothes as a distraction from their features rather than relying solely on the Disguise skill, use a 10ft pole to find traps and illusions without need for a roll, counteract acids with bases, use a bag of wet leaves to toss on a fire and fill a room with smoke, use high-proof liquor as something flammable, kick hot coals in enemies' eyes, fling a pot of boiling water at an enemy, start a brushfire at the cave opening to suffocate enemies or force them out, etc., etc., etc.

Some of that may be in the rules or within plausible skill-check use, but a lot of it expressly ain't.

[Gritmonger]

Point is, if you reveal where you're hid, you are in effect "observed" and not "unseen" and ergo, cannot hide in that spot again while the enemy is aware you are in that spot .

You are observed, and that means nobody is surprised if you pop up from that location again, regardless of combat, regardless of goings-on, regardless of how high you roll on a hide check - which you can't make while observed (i.e. in that same spot).

Only the invisible can hide in plain sight. Others require conditions (low light, natural conditions, a larger creature) that in effect mark them as concealed and allow them to hide.

If you moved behind new cover and hid, or moved while under cover, you could hide again, as the enemy would not be aware of your new location.

Hence why I said what I did earlier - you move, you are in a new place, and can proceed to hide again.

It just means a rogue can go cover to cover each round and snipe, which others would have to move, wait or shoot, and then hide, and then wait and then shoot -often taking more than twice as long to do the same thing.


A rogue can do it round to round, due to bonus actions - they just can't camp and do so.

[JAL_1138]

Point is, if you reveal where you're hid, you are in effect "observed" and not "unseen" and ergo, cannot hide in that spot again while the enemy is aware you are in that spot .

You are observed, and that means nobody is surprised if you pop up from that location again, regardless of combat, regardless of goings-on, regardless of how high you roll on a hide check - which you can't make while observed (i.e. in that same spot).

Only the invisible can hide in plain sight. Others require conditions (low light, natural conditions, a larger creature) that in effect mark them as concealed and allow them to hide.

If you moved behind new cover and hid, or moved while under cover, you could hide again, as the enemy would not be aware of your new location.

Hence why I said what I did earlier - you move, you are in a new place, and can proceed to hide again.

It just means a rogue can go cover to cover each round and snipe, which others would have to move, wait or shoot, and then hide, and then wait and then shoot -often taking more than twice as long to do the same thing.


A rogue can do it round to round, due to bonus actions - they just can't camp and do so.

I agree with this from a rules perspective, and most of the time a verisimilitude perspective. I'll still allow hiding in the same spot in a few, very limited circumstances--shooting out of a small opening in heavy brush, or from a rooftop with cover on it, when a long way from the melee, for instance, or picking off the guards at very long range from very heavy cover at night. It just makes sense that you'd be able to snipe more than once from the same spot if you are both very very far away and the enemy is sufficiently distracted or otherwise unaware of your exact location. But both the rule and general verisimilitude prevent jack-in-the-boxing with a large piece of cardboard in close combat.

Verisimilitude arguments work both ways--against some rule interpretations and in favor of others, depending on circumstance.

Maybe this is why the devs always just pass the buck with "up to the DM," but it would still be nice if they'd written certain things more clearly.

As a tangent, the "a 5-foot square is a large area" argument in favor of jack-in-the-box only works if you're using the entirely-optional DMG grid rules exactly as written.

[EvanescentHero]

-snip-

This is all I've been trying to say, but apparently the rules say you're allowed to hide just as long as no one has seen you, and evidently that means that when you give away your position, other people don't know where you are and thus they can and should be surprised when you shoot from the same spot again.

[Strill]

Point is, if you reveal where you're hid, you are in effect "observed" and not "unseen" and ergo, cannot hide in that spot again while the enemy is aware you are in that spot . Incorrect. The book explicitly addresses this.

PHB page 194-195

"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

To be hidden, you must have been unseen to begin with. When you attack, you stop being hidden, which means your opponent knows your location, but you don't stop being unseen since you're still behind cover. The attacker must attack with disadvantage because you are still unseen.

"When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see"

Therefore the attacker has disadvantage on their attack because they cannot see you, as well as any cover bonuses. You are still unseen, so you can attempt to hide again if you wish by taking the Hide action. Your opponent, however, will likely approach the spot you attacked from and see you. Until they are able to see behind the cover, you remain hidden.


This is all I've been trying to say, but apparently the rules say you're allowed to hide just as long as no one has seen you, and evidently that means that when you give away your position, other people don't know where you are and thus they can and should be surprised when you shoot from the same spot again.

Again, not correct. Please stop misusing "surprised". Surprised is an effect which happens when you initiate combat while hidden, against enemies who are not expecting combat. They are not able to take an action that round. Attacking while hidden, however, provides Advantage, and can be performed on any enemy regardless of whether they are surprised.

When you give away your position, then hide again without moving, enemies still know where you were, but not necessarily where you are. Because they can neither see nor hear you, you still get advantage on your attacks. Once they approach behind your cover and see you, you will no longer be hidden. Whether you choose to let them walk up to you, or move to new cover is up to you.

[Gritmonger]

I agree with this from a rules perspective, and most of the time a verisimilitude perspective. I'll still allow hiding in the same spot in a few, very limited circumstances--shooting out of a small opening in heavy brush, or from a rooftop with cover on it, when a long way from the melee, for instance, or picking off the guards at very long range from very heavy cover at night. It just makes sense that you'd be able to snipe more than once from the same spot if you are both very very far away and the enemy is sufficiently distracted or otherwise unaware of your exact location. But both the rule and general verisimilitude prevent jack-in-the-boxing with a large piece of cardboard in close combat.

Verisimilitude arguments work both ways--against some rule interpretations and in favor of others, depending on circumstance.

Maybe this is why the devs always just pass the buck with "up to the DM," but it would still be nice if they'd written certain things more clearly.

As a tangent, the "a 5-foot square is a large area" argument in favor of jack-in-the-box only works if you're using the entirely-optional DMG grid rules exactly as written.

I'd almost say you were giving the Lurker away for free...

[JAL_1138]

I'd almost say you were giving the Lurker away for free...

I'm AFB and don't recall that in the feat list. What is it?

[Gritmonger]

I'm AFB and don't recall that in the feat list. What is it?

Sorry, was also AFB and misremembered - Skulker. They don't give away position on a miss. I think the presence of Skulker (can hide while lightly obscured) argues that the ranged rogue does give away their position, and likely can't hide in the state of being observed, unless they're Skulkers in which case they can take a second, third, etc. shot without giving the game away.

Giving that to anybody... even on a hide check... kind of feels like betraying the feat.

[Malifice]

Hiding is all about whether or not you can see them. It has nothing to do with knowing their location..

Rubbish. Invisible creatures are not hidden by default. They still have to make a hide check (as an action, or a bonus action) after the spell is cast on them. All the invisibility does is create one of the conditions necessary to make the hide check and hide. Just like running behind a wall creates one of the conditions needed.

You're mixing up concealment or not being seen and being 'hidden'. They are different things.

Run it how you want though. Clearly cardboard box carrying rogues are a valid (indeed an optimal) 'thing' in your games.

[silveralen]

Incorrect. The book explicitly addresses this.

PHB page 194-195

"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

To be hidden, you must have been unseen to begin with. When you attack, you stop being hidden, which means your opponent knows your location, but you don't stop being unseen since you're still behind cover. The attacker must attack with disadvantage because you are still unseen.

"When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see"

Therefore the attacker has disadvantage on their attack because they cannot see you, as well as any cover bonuses. You are still unseen, so you can attempt to hide again if you wish by taking the Hide action. Your opponent, however, will likely approach the spot you attacked from and see you. Until they are able to see behind the cover, you remain hidden.

Wait.... Are you talking about firing directly from cover? Because it that case, if you are so obscured you can't be seen, you also can't see the enemy you are firing at, canceling out your advantage from being hidden. Technically the way obscure is written it actually sounds like being in say heavy foliage imposes disadvantage on you but not the enemy, but I'm pretty sure most of us aren't running it that way regardless.

Now, if you are talking about hiding, moving to fire, and jumping back into cover yes that makes sense.

One rather odd RAI I just noticed is that it is almost worded such that leaving cover/going into the open automatically causes you to be seen which breaks stealth. I do think that is how it is meant to work in combat, but outside combat I'm unsure.

[Malifice]

"If you are hidden—both unseen and unheard—when you make an attack, you give away your location when the attack hits or misses."

To be hidden, you must have been unseen to begin with. When you attack, you stop being hidden, which means your opponent knows your location, but you don't stop being unseen since you're still behind cover. The attacker must attack with disadvantage because you are still unseen.

"When you attack a target that you can’t see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you’re guessing the target’s location or you’re targeting a creature you can hear but not see"

If you give away your location after making your attack from hiding, why does your opponent now need to 'guess' it?

You dont have to 'guess their location'; they just gave it away when they made the attack roll! (barring skulker).

[Strill]

If you give away your location after making your attack from hiding, why does your opponent now need to 'guess' it?
Because you've also used the Hide action, hiding your location again.

[Strill]

Wait.... Are you talking about firing directly from cover? Because it that case, if you are so obscured you can't be seen, you also can't see the enemy you are firing at, canceling out your advantage from being hidden. Technically the way obscure is written it actually sounds like being in say heavy foliage imposes disadvantage on you but not the enemy, but I'm pretty sure most of us aren't running it that way regardless.

Now, if you are talking about hiding, moving to fire, and jumping back into cover yes that makes sense.

One rather odd RAI I just noticed is that it is almost worded such that leaving cover/going into the open automatically causes you to be seen which breaks stealth. I do think that is how it is meant to work in combat, but outside combat I'm unsure.

The only way to be hidden is to not be seen. You therefore must be behind cover of some sort while attacking to get advantage on the attack. It's totally possible to be hidden behind, say, a barrel, and throw a dart or dagger without exposing yourself.

[JAL_1138]

Sorry, was also AFB and misremembered - Skulker. They don't give away position on a miss. I think the presence of Skulker (can hide while lightly obscured) argues that the ranged rogue does give away their position, and likely can't hide in the state of being observed, unless they're Skulkers in which case they can take a second, third, etc. shot without giving the game away.

Giving that to anybody... even on a hide check... kind of feels like betraying the feat.

I think the rule is clear that once you attack you give away your position and can't hide again; not disputing that. And most of the time, in the vast overwhelming majority of combats a party is likely to face, that's how I'd run it. I don't follow the rules to the letter all the time, though, if they get in the way of making it feel real.

If you need a feat for the very, very limited circumstances I'd allow a hide after you pop out of cover--or don't leave cover, or are wearing a ghillie suit--shoot, and pop back down...have a feat, I guess. Seems like it'd be much, much broader than what I'd allow, though. I'm talking about the edge cases where you're in heavy brush at night at near-maximum range for your weapon, plinking at a spot just below the torches that are wrecking the guards' night vision; or where you're a football-field or more away from the pitched melee, shooting from a rooftop at enemies way too busy getting stabbed in the face to locate *which* rooftop, or even that it's coming *from* a rooftop. And there's times--not many, but there are--where I still wouldn't give it then.

[Malifice]

Because you've also used the Hide action, hiding your location again.

How can you hide again seeing as you give away your location the instant you attack someone?

You can only do what you're suggesting if you miss with your attack AND have the Skulker feat.

Otherwise, you cant attempt a hide check again. You can certainly duck down behind full cover so no-one can see you, but you cant make a hide check if someone knows where you are, and watched you go into your full cover.

Not being seen is not the same as 'hidden'. Youre not even hidden (by default) when youre invisible.

[silveralen]

The only way to be hidden is to not be seen. You therefore must be behind cover of some sort while attacking to get advantage on the attack. It's totally possible to be hidden behind, say, a barrel, and throw a dart or dagger without exposing yourself.

Logically? Yes. But first we were going off logic we wouldn't need to continue this thread. We have descended into the realm of pure RAW, where logic, realism, and balance have no place.

And, by RAW, being obscured is what keeps you from being seen. So if you don't expose yourself, disadvantage on the attack.

[Strill]

How can you hide again seeing as you give away your location the instant you attack someone?By using your bonus action to hide. The only requirements for hiding are that you are unseen and unheard. What the enemy may or may not know about your location is irrelevant as long as those two requirements are met.


Otherwise, you cant attempt a hide check again. You can certainly duck down behind full cover so no-one can see you, but you cant make a hide check if someone knows where you are, and watched you go into your full cover.No one said they saw you. In fact, they decidedly did not see you, because you wouldn't have been able to hide in the first place if they could see you from that position. All they know is your location at the moment you made the attack.

[Malifice]

By using your bonus action to hide. The only requirements for hiding are that you are unseen and unheard. What the enemy may or may not know about your location is irrelevant as long as those two requirements are met.

Unseen and unheard going into hiding. In the plain English meaning of that phrase, not in a DnD action economy game rule term.

The phrase means the obvious: 'If your enemy is watching you, you cant attempt to hide' in the normal everyday common sense meaning of what that means.

As in: 'If you and I are in an otherwise empty room, and I watch you climb into a solitary box and close the lid, while I can no longer see you (you have 100 percent concealment now) you are not suddenly hidden from me, I will not be surprised when you pop out of the box, and I know exactly where you are"

Its beyond silly we are even having this conversation.

I blame MMORpG's and 'push button' for 'stealth' mode. Use some common sense people.

[Strill]

Unseen and unheard going into hiding. In the plain English meaning of that phrase, not in a DnD action economy game rule term.

The phrase means the obvious: 'If your enemy is watching you, you cant attempt to hide' in the normal everyday common sense meaning of what that means.

As in: 'If you and I are in an otherwise empty room, and I watch you climb into a solitary box and close the lid, while I can no longer see you (you have 100 percent concealment now) you are not suddenly hidden from me, I will not be surprised when you pop out of the box, and I know exactly where you are"

Its beyond silly we are even having this conversation.

I blame MMORpG's and 'push button' for 'stealth' mode. Use some common sense people.

There's obviously a breakdown in communication here. At no point in this hypothetical scenario did the enemy see you in the first place. Knowing where something came from, and seeing someone throw it, are two COMPLETELY different things. The former is what happened, not the latter.

Second, I've already explained it: Advantage due to being hidden is NOT due to surprise. Surprise is a completely different mechanic.

Third, you absolutely can hide, even if an opponent sees you run behind an obstacle. In fact, that's the only way you can hide in combat at all because all characters are assumed to know where all other characters are, unless those characters specifically hide. Once you're hidden, since they no longer see or hear you, they can't read your posture or intent or exact location, and cannot predict where to guard from.

You're adding details to this scenario to make it seem contrived, when there's nothing contrived about it.

[silveralen]

In fact, that's the only way you can hide in combat at all because all characters are assumed to know where all other characters are, unless those characters specifically hide. Once you're hidden, since they no longer see or hear you, they can't read your posture or intent or exact location, and cannot predict where to guard from.

This is interesting, because as many of us have said you really shouldn't be hiding in combat. The rules mention people being too alert to sneak up on normally.

Also worth mentioning, if you hide behind a rock in an open plain, that is no different than hiding in the open. They know where you are every bit as much as they would standing in the open. The general location and source of the attack is all they'd ever know, being behind a rock doesn't change that.

This is the problem. Hiding in combat is stupid 90% of the time. The few examples where it isn't idiotic can be handled by DM fiat, but the general rule being no makes sense.

[Strill]

This is interesting, because as many of us have said you really shouldn't be hiding in combat. The rules mention people being too alert to sneak up on normally.Of course you should be hiding in combat. That's the whole point of the Rogue's cunning action. If you go with this nonsense about not being able to hide, then you screw over Rogues.


Also worth mentioning, if you hide behind a rock in an open plain, that is no different than hiding in the open. They know where you are every bit as much as they would standing in the open. The general location and source of the attack is all they'd ever know, being behind a rock doesn't change that. No, the location and source of the attack is not all they'd ever know. They'd be able to see their attackers otherwise, and would be able to see exactly when they're about to attack, and know when to block.

[huttj509]

Ok, now I want to figure out how to set up a scenario/test.

Paintball.

Person A and Person B are 20 feet apart. Person A remains in place, and has a large target marked on his (um, add some padding) chest. Person B is trying to get the most points she can in, say, 20 shots.

Person A cannot leave the general area he's in, but can twist and turn, trying to spoil B's aim and reduce the points gained (probably need to add some rules about turning completely backwards or going prone).


Then, bring in a 4-5 foot wide blockade (maybe rock, or plywood, or something with a heavy mesh) so that A cannot see and anticipate B's shots, but still knows where B is, as B then can duck out from either side or above the barricade to fire.

Compare the scores.

My instinct is that the second situation would have a higher score.

[silveralen]

Of course you should be hiding in combat. That's the whole point of the Rogue's cunning action. If you go with this nonsense about not being able to hide, then you screw over Rogues.

No, the location and source of the attack is not all they'd ever know. They'd be able to see their attackers otherwise, and would be able to see exactly when they're about to attack, and know when to block.

Not really no. Plenty of other usages for the BA, the rogue can gain advantage in other ways, and this keeps ranged rogues from getting free advantage every turn compared to melee rogues, who already expose themselves to more danger. Plus, the rogue could still hide, it would just be an occasional thing not an every turn thing.

Unless the rogue fires through solid rock you still get to see that occur.

[Strill]

Not really no. Plenty of other usages for the BA, the rogue can gain advantage in other ways, and this keeps ranged rogues from getting free advantage every turn compared to melee rogues, who already expose themselves to more danger. Plus, the rogue could still hide, it would just be an occasional thing not an every turn thing.

Unless the rogue fires through solid rock you still get to see that occur.

Melee rogues expose themselves to danger in order to get two sneak attacks per turn via reaction attacks. They have plenty going for them.

[Sjappo]

Melee rogues expose themselves to danger in order to get two sneak attacks per turn via reaction attacks. They have plenty going for them.
Wait ... what? Does SA reset for your reaction? That's interesting. Do you have a quote for that?

[pwykersotz]

Wait ... what? Does SA reset for your reaction? That's interesting. Do you have a quote for that?

Sneak attack is once per turn (PHB 96). Turns are one per combatant each round(PHB 189-190). Mearls said (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/510275846448218112) he believes that the intent is 1/round, but admits the rules say 1/turn currently.

[Sjappo]

Sneak attack is once per turn (PHB 96). Turns are one per combatant each round(PHB 189-190). Mearls said (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/510275846448218112) he believes that the intent is 1/round, but admits the rules say 1/turn currently.
Thanx. The old turn-round mix-up.

[Gritmonger]

Ok, now I want to figure out how to set up a scenario/test.

Paintball.

Person A and Person B are 20 feet apart. Person A remains in place, and has a large target marked on his (um, add some padding) chest. Person B is trying to get the most points she can in, say, 20 sho. .

Person A cannot leave the general area he's in, but can twist and turn, trying to spoil B's aim and reduce the points gained (probably need to add some rules about turning completely backwards or going prone).


Then, bring in a 4-5 foot wide blockade (maybe rock, or plywood, or something with a heavy mesh) so that A cannot see and anticipate B's shots, but still knows where B is, as B then can duck out from either side or above the barricade to fire.

Compare the scores.

My instinct is that the second situation would have a higher score.

That's comparing cover to no cover, and doesn't apply as much to attacks based on the target being exposed and unaware. If you had a long wall instead, and both were free to move, it might be possible to move point to point behind the wall and then catch the enemy combatant still watching the place where you were.

[JAL_1138]

That's comparing cover to no cover, and doesn't apply as much to attacks based on the target being exposed and unaware. If you had a long wall instead, and both were free to move, it might be possible to move point to point behind the wall and then catch the enemy combatant still watching the place where you were.

Right on both counts. Cover gives you defense in the form of imposing a penalty or disadvantage to attack rolls made against you; it does not grant you the ability to hide once your location is known in order to get advantage to your attack. Once you move without being seen doing so, your location is no longer known, and you can hide.

[silveralen]

Melee rogues expose themselves to danger in order to get two sneak attacks per turn via reaction attacks. They have plenty going for them.

Okay. So lets assume that the enemy isn't a moron and doesn't give the squishy rogue free damage every turn by running away from it.

Ranged rogues are already every bit as strong if played intelligently.

[Strill]

That's comparing cover to no cover, and doesn't apply as much to attacks based on the target being exposed and unaware. If you had a long wall instead, and both were free to move, it might be possible to move point to point behind the wall and then catch the enemy combatant still watching the place where you were.

When was anyone talking about the target being exposed and unaware? Stop pulling the conversation off-topic. The point was that having a spot to hide behind makes you harder to predict, even if you don't move. That's what Advantage is from.

[Gritmonger]

When was anyone talking about the target being exposed and unaware? Stop pulling the conversation off-topic. The point was that having a spot to hide behind makes you harder to predict, even if you don't move. That's what Advantage is from.

But you can predict. Depending on distance, it actually gets more likely you'll know where he is going to pop out- the angle in your field of view narrows. Unless both have the same cover, though, it isn't a fair comparison, and fouls the data by the target forced to zero mobility and no cover.

[Strill]

But you can predict. Depending on distance, it actually gets more likely you'll know where he is going to pop out- the angle in your field of view narrows. Unless both have the same cover, though, it isn't a fair comparison, and fouls the data by the target forced to zero mobility and no cover.

What are you talking about? The point is a hiding spot makes you less predictable, which corresponds to Advantage. What the target has is irrelevant.

[Gritmonger]

What are you talking about? The point is a hiding spot makes you less predictable, which corresponds to Advantage. What the target has is irrelevant.

Hiding spot is blown with first shot, except for a miss by skulker. Target would notice a pop-up to shoot after that, because their attention is focused in that narrow angle. Shooter isn't hidden anymore, just under cover. As long as they don't move, they are still under observation, and can't hide in the exact same five foot hex or square: it isn't any different from last time they popped out, there is no startling or catching unaware.

[themaque]

Not to be "That Guy" but... page 5? Wow, did not expect that. :-D

[huttj509]

Hiding spot is blown with first shot, except for a miss by skulker. Target would notice a pop-up to shoot after that, because their attention is focused in that narrow angle. Shooter isn't hidden anymore, just under cover. As long as they don't move, they are still under observation, and can't hide in the exact same five foot hex or square: it isn't any different from last time they popped out, there is no startling or catching unaware.

And that's why I wish I had the resources/time to go out and test it.